High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/36126/2015dismissed

Harjinder Singh Gill v. State Of Haryana

2015-10-20Mr Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain2 pages

KAPIL 2015.10.21 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36126-2015 [1] *** In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM-M-36126-2015 Date of Decision:20.10.2015 Harjinder Singh Gill

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:

Mr. Sukhjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***** SABINA, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.0204 dated 09.07.2015, under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station, Butana, District Karnal. As per the prosecution case, petitioner and his coaccused had taken `12,00,000/- from the complainant on the pretext of sending him to New Zealand. However, the complainant was neither sent abroad nor the money paid by him to the accused was returned to him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had gone to New Zealand in the year 2009 and had returned in the year 2014. When the petitioner

KAPIL 2015.10.21 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36126-2015 [2] *** returned to India, he has been falsely involved in this case. In the present case, allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was residing in New Zealand and had been assured by Kuldeep Singh (father of the petitioner) that the complainant could be sent to New Zealand in case they paid `12,00,000/- to the petitioner and his co-accused. Money in question was paid to the father of the petitioner. However, the complainant was neither sent to New Zealand nor the amount paid by him to the accused was returned to him.

Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, is made out. Petitioner might be required for custodial interrogation. Dismissed.

October 20, 2015 (SABINA) kapil JUDGE